codes for landowners

The personal names and status of all
landholders are coded. Personal names are always coded; institutional
names are coded only if they have tenurialsignificance. Where a landholder is mentioned more than once in a single entryin
the same landholding context, the appropriate code is used only on the
first occurrence of the name. If, however, a name appears several times
in an entry in different landholding contexts, then the appropriate code
is employed on each occasion. The codes are:

TEN: The code for those holding land in 1066 or 1086

T66: The code for those holding land in 1066

T86: The code for all landholders in 1086

TXX: The code for all landholders other than those coded as holding land
in 1066 or 1086, that is landowners coded as holding land about 1070,
landowners involved in disputes, and unclassified personal names

TX: The code for an unclassified personal name. This code is used for all
personal names mentioned in the text where no landholding function was
implied. It is also used in the fiefheadings of collective fiefs, those fiefs which belong to no one individual but to groups of minor landholders

Almost all manorialholdings
have a tenant-in-chief. There is normally no problem in identifying
them; but there is some ambiguity about their status on certain fiefs in
the three counties of Cheshire, Cornwall, and Shropshire due to the
fact that these fiefs were held from a count or earl rather than directly from
the king. Since the count or earl was himself a tenant-in-chief, those
holding a sub-fief from him were tenants from one point of view but in
certain respects they had the status of the tenants-in-chief in other
counties. In Cornwall on fief 5, and Shropshire on fief 4, this
uncertainty is reflected in the Phillimore numbering systemwhich
has three-number references, the first number signifying the fief of
the count or earl, the second the sub-fief of their tenants, the third
the number of the manor within their sub-fief. In Cheshire, where the
earl was the tenant-in-chief of all lay holdings within the county, three-figure references were not needed. Instead, the manors held by the church were distinguished by the letters A and B

On manors where no tenant was named, the tenant-in-chief was the direct lord of the peasantryand received the profits from the manor. On the complex manors of the Danelaw, the coding assumes that all dependencieswere in the hands of whoever held the central manor unless explicitly stated otherwise

TW2: The code for minor tenants-in-chief in 1086, those whose holdingswere
grouped with others of their kind in a collective fief usually placed
at the end of the county. Often described as the king's thanesor servants, these landowners would be known at a later date as sergeants,
and their fiefs as sergeantries. They normally performed minor services
rather than knight service for their fiefs. Landowners who were
sergeants in one county sometimes appeared as fully-fledged
tenants-in-chief in another, though the bulk of the sergeants were, in
fact, minor landowners, often surviving Anglo-Saxons. On collective
fiefs, the name of a tenant was sometimes omitted. This might be an
accidental omission but could imply that the manor was in royal hands.
Unless there is a clear indication to the contrary, the text has been
coded to indicate that the name of a landowner has been accidentally
omitted

TW3: The code for the tenant of a tenant-in-chief in 1086, the man to whom tenant-in-chief had sub-infeudated- alienated - the manor concerned, normally in return for military service, though Domesday Book rarely states the condition of the tenure.
Tenants were the owners of the manors in which they were named, in the
sense that they were lords of the manorial peasantry and enjoyed the
profits from the manor. Where a manor was held from the tenant-in-chief
by several individuals without any indication that it was divided
between them, the tenants are coded as joint tenants,
with equal status. On the complex manors of the Danelaw, the coding
assumes that all dependencies were in the hands of the tenant-in-chief
unless explicitly stated otherwise. Where the central manor was in the
hands of a tenant, however, the coding assumes that its dependencies had
been granted to him with the central manor unless there are clear
indications to the contrary

TW4: The code for a subtenant in 1086, that is the tenant of a tenant of a
tenant-in-chief, the landholder on the fourth rung of the tenurial
ladder which led downwards from king to tenant-in-chief to tenant to
subtenant. It follows that subtenants only occurred on manors which had
been subinfeudated

TW5: The code for the tenant of part of an entry in 1086, who normally held a sub-manor within the manor

TW6: The code for a subtenant holding part of an entry in 1086 which had been sub-infeudated

TW7: The code for a landowner who was not the sitting tenant but had jurisdictionover a manor in 1086; normally this was the Crown

TW8: The code for the holder of an urban property in 1086

TE0: The code for an overlord who preceded the overlord of 1066

TE1: The code for the lord of a manor in 1066 who had no named superiors or dependants

TE2: The code for an overlord in 1066. The code signifies lordship over men, not possession of an estate

TE3: The code for a manorial lord in 1066 who was the 'man' of a named
overlord. He, not the overlord, enjoyed the profits of the estate but
was the dependant of his lord and under his protection

TE4: The code for a manorial lord in 1066 who was the dependent of an
overlord and himself the lord of a 'man'. The man at the bottom of this
chain of lordship enjoyed the profits of the estate but was the
dependant of his immediate lord and under his protection

TE5: The code for a manorial lord in 1066 who was the dependent of an
overlord who was himself the 'man' of a higher lord. The man at the
bottom of this chain of lordship enjoyed the profits of the estate but
was the dependant of his immediate lord and under his protection

TE6: The code for the a 'man' who held part of a manor in 1066, the bulk of which was held by his lord

TE7: The code for superior lordship over a holding in 1066, implying lordship over both men and lands

TE8: The code for the holder of an urban property in 1066

TE9: The code for the lord of a manor who preceded the manorial lord of 1066

T70: The code for a landholder who held land between 1066 and 1086,
normally the predecessor of the tenant of 1086. A few fiefs had been
held by tenants-in-chief who no longer held them in 1086. If no
successor was named, the fief is assumed to have reverted to the Crown
and has been coded accordingly

TCL: Domesday Book records many legal disputes. Such entries are coded for their legal interest;
in addition, the names of the landowners involved in the dispute are
coded to indicate their status in the dispute wherever possible. This is
the code for the claimant in such a dispute

TDF: Domesday Book records many legal disputes. Such entries are coded
for their legal interest; in addition, the names of the landowners
involved in the dispute are coded to indicate their status in the
dispute wherever possible. This is the code for the defendant in such a
dispute

TOF: The code for a royal official, acting officially, rather than in a landholding capacity. Most such cases refer to sheriffs. Royal officials as such are not coded

TIN: The code for a church identified solely by the place-name in the entry

TRE: This code delimits the entire formulae used to describe Anglo-Saxon tenures, including the names of the landholders themselves

TRW: This code delimits the entire formulae used to describe Anglo-Norman
tenures, including the names of the landholders themselves